Speaker Pelosi Announces Impeachment Managers CSPAN January 16, 2020 12:22am-12:52am EST
expected at 11:00. the impeachment trial of president trump begins at noon. at 10:45 a.m., house speaker nancy pelosi holds her weekly briefing. coming up tonight on c-span, house speaker nancy pelosi announces the senate house impeachment managers. the come of the debate from u.s. house on sending the senate. that's followed by the and grossman ceremony were speaker signs the impeachment revolution and the managers walk the resolution to the senate. later, senate majority leader mcconnell announces the schedule for the impeachment trial in the senate. [inaudible]
>> good morning, everyone. this is a very important day for us. this is a very important dayr us. founders and poets and others use used over time to place in time, to emphasize the importance of time. everything is about time. how we market. today is an important day. because today is the day that we name the managers who go to the floor to pass the resolution to transmit the articles of impeachment to the senate and later in the day when we have our engrossment, that we march those articles of impeachment to the united states senate.
as i've said, it's always been our founders when they started, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary when. abraham lincoln four score and seven years ago. thomas payne, these are the times that times have found us. again and again, even our poets, longfellow, listen my children and you will hear the midnight ride of paul revere. that famous day. it's always about marking history. using time. on december 18th the house of representatives impeached the president of the united states. an impeachment that will last forever. since december 18, there have been comments about when are we going to send the articles over?
well, we had hoped that the curtesy could be extended that we would have seen what the process would be in the senate. short of that time has revealed many things since then. time has been our friend in all of this, because it has yielded incriminating evidence, more truth into the public domain. since we passed the articles on december 20, two days later, new emails showed that 91 minutes of trump's phone call with president zelensky, a top office of management and budget aide asked them to hold off on ukraine aide. acting chief of staff mulvaney's role in the delay of the effort by lawyers in the administration to justify the delay and the alarm, this is very important. that the alarm that the delay, time, caused within the
administration. on january 2, newly unredacted pentagon emails which the house subpoenaed and the president blocked raised serious concerns by the trump administration officials. trump administration officials, they were concerned about the legality of the president's hold on the aid to the ukraine. john bolton said he would comply with a subpoena to testify and that he has new relevant information. on january 13 reports emerged the russian government hacked a recurring gas company burisma as part of their ongoing effort to influence u.s. elections to support -- in support of trump. and yesterday the house committee, two of our chairman here, chairman nadler, chairman schiff, chairman eliot engel,
and chairwoman maloney of government reform, they released new evidence pursuant to a house subpoena. an associate of giuliani, that further proves the president was the central player in the scheme to pressure ukraine for his own benefit in the 2020 election. this is about the constitution of the united states. and it's important for the president and putin to know that the american voter, voters in america should decide who our president is, not vladimir putin and russia. so today i'm very proud to present the managers who will bring the case which we have great confidence in in terms of impeaching the president and his removal.
but this further evidence insists that we wouldn't be in this situation had we not waited, insist that there be witnesses and that we see documentation. and now you see some of that change happening on the senate side. i hope it does for the good of our country and to honor our constitution. so today on the floor we'll pass a resolution naming the managers as i mentioned. appropriating the funds for the trial and transmitting the articles of impeachment of the president of the united states for trying to influence a foreign government for his own personal and political benefit. chair adam schiff of california, lead manager, chairman schiff as you know chair of a committee on intelligence is serving his 10th term in congress.
before congress mr. schiff was a california state senator and served as a federal prosecutor in the u.s. attorney's office in los angeles for six years. most notably prosecuting the first federal fbi agent ever to be indicted for espionage. chairman jerry nadler, chair of the house judiciary committee is serving his 15th term in congress. mr. nadler served as the top democrat on civil rights and civil libertyies for 13 years. before congress mr. nadler served the new york state assembly for 16 years. chair zolofkin. jurisdiction over federal elections is a senior member of the house judiciary committee. she's serving her 13th term incongress.
this is her third impeachment, as a staffer in the nixon impeachment, as a member of the judiciary committee in the clinton impeachment, and now as a manager in this impeachment of president trump. chair hop kin jeffreys. the chair of the house democratic caucus and is serving his fourth term in congress. he's a member of the house judiciary committee. before in congress he served in the assembly of new york for six years. an accomplished litigator and private practice before running for office. mr. jeffreys clerked for the honorable howard bare junior for the southern district of new york. congresswoman val demings of florida. she's a member of both the house permanent select committee on intelligence and the house judiciary committee.
ms. demings is serving her second term in congress. before congress she served as the orlando police department for 27 years. part of that time as the first woman police chief in orlando. congressman jason crow of colorado. he served our country bravely as an army ranger in iraq and afghanistan before coming, running for congress. esther crowe was a respected litigator in private practice in colorado. congresswoman sylvia garcia of texas. she's a member of the house judiciary committee. before congress miss garcia served in texas state senate previously. she was the director and presiding judge of the houston municipal system and was elected city controller. she was later elected the first hispanic and first woman to be elected in her own right the
harris county commissioner's court. as you can see from these descriptions, the emphasis is on litigator's. the emphasis is on comfort level in the courtroom. the emphasis is making as strong as possible case to protect and defend our constitution to seek the truth for the american people. i'm very proud and honored that these seven members, distinguished members, have accepted this serious responsibility. again to protect and defend for the people, defending our democracy. later at noon, we'll go to the -- when we leave here, a little bit later at noon, we'll go to the floor and pass a resolution, naming the managers officially. i wanted to say more about them here and to say that the decision to come down in favor of litigators is necessitated by
the clear evidence that we should have witnesses and we should have documentation and we have to make the strongest prosecution not only of our very strong case, but of all the information that has come forth since. we're going to take a few questions. reporter: time has only strengthened the case, why did you rush to have a vote before christmas, and why hold hearings in just two weeks? couldn't you stretch this out longer in order to get more information? rep. pelosi: well, i will say we had a strong case for impeachment of the president and removal for the president. anything more would be in terms of where we go in the senate. and i yield to the chairman. >> we've always felt this certain urgency about this impeachment given that the president was trying to get foreign help in cheating in the
next election. but as soon as we did take up and pass the articles, mitch mcconnell made it clear he didn't want a trial in the senate. he didn't want to hear from witnesses or documents. and this time has given us the ability to show the american people the necessity of a fair trial. to expose the degree to which mcconnell is working with the president to turn what should be a trial into a sham. and that time has been i think very effective in not only bringing new evidence to light and the evidence was already overwhelming, but also forcing senators to go on record. do they want a fair trial? one that's fair to the president and the american people, or are they going to participate in a coverup? i think it's been very effective, and additional evidence continues to come to light that not only as bolsters an overwhelming case but has put additional pressure on the senate to conduct a fair trial.
and the last thing i'll say is mcconnell has taken to saying that the senate should only consider the closed record that comes from the house. and as if what the senate is not a trial, but an appeal from a trial. but, of course, the senate, the framers had in mind, a real trial with witnesses and evidence, and if mcconnell makes this the first trial in history without witnesses, it will be ek posed as an effort to cover up for the president. finally some have suggested as part of your question, why didn't we wait to get more testimony? well, we have sought mcgahn's testimony, the president's lawyer, since april of last year. we still don't have a final court judgment. so yes, we could have waited years to get testimony, further testimony from all the people the president has been obstructing, but essentially that would negate the impeachment power.
that is allow the president by virtue of obstruction to prevent his own impeachment, and that was an unacceptable course, particularly when the whole object of the president's scheme was to cheat in the election, which is the ordinary mechanism for dealing with a corrupt presidency. rep. pelosi: let me just say i was very discouraged to see mitch mcconnell sign onto a resolution dismissing the case. dismissal is coverup. dismissal is coverup. do you want to speak to that, jerry? >> left -- let me add to that. there is an overwhelming case beyond any reasonable doubt that the president betrayed the country by using by withholding federal funds appropriated by congress, breaking the law in doing so, in order to extort a foreign government in
two intervening to try to embarrass a potential opponent of his. there is overwhelming evidence of that. we couldn't wait, because some people said well, let the election take care of it. he's trying to cheat in that election. so it is essential that we bring this impeachment to stop the president from trying to rig -- not from trying. he tried. from rigging the next election. from conspireing with a foreign government as the russian government attempted to rig our last election. the evidence is overwhelming. the latest evidence with parmess and giuliani makes it more so. it made sense to white a while, but we have to proceed, because the election, the integrity of the election is at stake. let me add one other thing. this is a test of the
constitution. the president's conduct violates the constitution in every single way. trying to rig an election. stonewalling the congress saying no one may testify because i can have a coverup despite congress. but it's a test of the constitution now. the senate is intended by the constitution to conduct a fair trial. the american people know that in a trial you permit witnesses. you present the evidence. if the senate doesn't permit the introduction of all relevant witnesses and all of documents that the house wants to introduce because the house is the prosecutor here, then the senate is engaging in an unconstitutional and disgusting coverup. the question is does the senate, the senate is on trial as well as the president. does the senate conduct a trial according to the constitution to vindicate the republic or does the senate participate in the president's crimes by covering
them up? madame speaker? reporter: you talked about the push to try to have witnesses, try to have documents and making some of the matters. based on your understanding of the senate rules, what do you see as procedural options to try to force the senate to do something or just make the best case you can and then if they don't try to go down that route say ok, this is what they decided. rep. pelosi: well, i've always often quoted abraham lincoln, public sentiment is everything. the public wants to see a fair trial, whatever the outcome with documentation, and we haven't seen even the rules. we put our rules out in october for the next couple of months
, the next few months that followed for our making the case. we haven't seen what the rules are in the senate, but we do know in the time that's transpired since december 18, the american people have come down in favor of a fair trial which they always wanted, but meaning that it would entail having witnesses as well as documents. anyone else want to speak to that? >> the evidence is overwhelming that donald trump corruptly abused his power by pressuring a foreign government to target an american citizen for political and personal gain by withholding $391 million in military aide to ukraine without justification. there is a mountain of evidence in that regard. in america, no one is above the
law. that is why the house proceeded with great leadership from speaker pelosi, chairman schiff and chairman nadler to hold this president accountable. the constitution required it. our democracy required it. given the evidence that has been built to date, the american people deserve a fair trial our democracy deserves a fair trial. the constitution deserves a fair trial. so we're going to simply follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the constitution and present the truth to the american people. speaker pelosi has given us the space for the american people to weigh in over the last few weeks which has led at least four senators, which is the magic number, to publicly indicate that in their view, a fair trial does include the presentation of
documents and presentation of witnesses. we certainly hope that is what will take place. >> can i just add, if i could just add really quickly onto this, and i think the chairman, i just want to underscore the importance of documents. we spent a lot of time talking about john bolton and other witnesses. witnesses may tell the truth and witnesses may not tell the truth. documents don't generally lie. and in the documents that we submitted to the judiciary committee just last night, you see the importance of documents. included among the documents we obtained is a letter from giuliani trying to set up a meeting with the president of ukraine to discuss a particular matter. of course, we know that matter is the investigations that the president wanted ukraine to undertake of his political opponent. there have been -- there's been speculation that maybe the president or his allies will throw mr. giuliani under the bus. that letter makes clear that
giuliani in his own words is acting at the behest and what -- with the knowledge and consent of the president. the president was the architect of this scheme. these documents are important. we have only obtained a very small sample of the universe of documents that the president is withholding. if mr. mcconnell wants to follow the clinton model, all the documents were provided before the trial. those documents should be demanded by the senators. if the senators want to see the evidence, they should demand to see the documents and not participate in an effort to stone wall or cover up the president's misconduct. >> and witnesses were deposed. >> adam b. -- >> yes. as the speaker mentions, the other profound distinction between now and the clinton case is that the witnesses that the house managers sought in the clinton trial had already testified.
their testimony was known. so the question for the senators then was do we want to hear them again? and there was another question not present here which is do we really want to hear witnesses talking about sex on the senate floor? that's not the issue before us. the issue here is does the senate want to hear from witnesses who have never testified? people who like other witnesses, have firsthand information? and unless the president is willing to concede everything the house has alleged, these witnesses are very pertinent and relevant. so this is another profound distinction between the clinton investigation and trial and where we are today. >> madame speaker, having witnesses for the prosecution opens up potentially having witnesses for the defense. are you, the managers, prepared for that? >> let me say we are prepared, but the relevant question is relevance. relevance.
in any trial you call witnesses who have information about the allegations, about the charges. the allegations for which there's a mountain of evidence that the president betrayed his country by trying to extort ukraine by withholding $391 million in military aid that congress voted in order to get ukraine to announce an investigation of a domestic political opponent. that's the allegation. any witness who has information about whether that is true or not true is a relevant witness. anybody like hunter biden who has no information about any of that is not a relevant witness. any trial judge in this country would rule such a witness as and inadmissible. if someone is accused of robbing a bank, withins say we saw him running into the bank and
somewhere else is relevant. a witness who says he committed forgery on some other document is not relevant to the robbery charge. that's the distinction. rep. pelosi: let me just say what is at stake here is the constitution of the united states. this is what an impeachment is about. the president violated his oath of office. undermined our national security. jeopardized the integrity of our elections. tried to use the appropriations process as his private atm machine to withhold funds in order to advance his personal and political advantage. that is what the senators should be looking into. this is a president who said the second amendment -- excuse me, article 2 says that i can do whatever i want.
it does not. he's undermining the beautiful, exquisite, brilliant, genius of the constitution, the separation of powers by granting to himself the powers of a monarch which is exactly what benjamin franklin said we didn't have, a republic, if we can keep it. so this is a very serious matter, and we take it to heart. and really, in a solemn way. in a very solemn way. it's about the constitution. it's about the republic if we can keep it. and they shouldn't be frivolous with the constitution of the united states. even though the president of the united states has. the president is not above the law. he will be held accountable. he has been held accountable. he has been impeached. he's been impeached forever. they can never erase that.
i'm very proud of the managers that we have. i believe that they bring to this case in the united states senate great patriotism, great respect for the constitution of the united states, great comfort level in a courtroom. great commitment to the constitution. jerry being the chair of that constitutional subcommittee for 13 years, and zo being involved in three impeachments and there are others bringing their intellectual resources and knowledge to all of this. so i thank them for accepting this responsibility. i wish them well. it's going to be a very big commitment of time, but i don't think we could be better served than by the patriotism and dedication of the managers that i am naming here this morning. thank you all very much.
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] >> for the third time in history, a president will be on trial in the u.s. senate. watch live on c-span2. live thursday on the c-span networks. at 9:00 a.m., the u.s. house returns to debate a measure that would overturn an education department rule on student loan forgiveness. that is on c-span. on c-span2 at 940 5 a.m., the senate takes up the
u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement. a vote on the measure is expected at 11:00. the impeachment trial of president trump begins at noon. on c-span3 at 1040 5 a.m., house speaker nancy pelosi holds her weekly briefing. journal,'s washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, nebraska republican congressman jeff fortenberry joins us to discuss border wall funding and u.s. trade policy. then, wisconsin democratic congresswoman ren moore will be wisconsin talk about as a campaign 2020 battleground state. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. next, the house debates the
resolution of authorizing managers for the senate impeachment trial of president trump. speaker pelosi named seven managers. adam schiff, jerrold nadler, hakeem jeffries, zoe lofgren, val demings, jason crow, and sylvia garcia. the what purpose is gentleman from new york seeking recognition? t to house resolution 767, i now send to the desk a resolution appointing authorizing managers for the impeachment of donald john trump president of the united states and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. schiff, mr. nadler, mrs. love green, misdemmings and mr. crow are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment manager against donald john trump a message be sent to the